L&CP Week 4 Discussiom: Instructions Chapter 8 introduced you... | Psychology

Research Requirement:

Instructions Chapter 8 introduced you to the laws governing interviewing criminal suspects and the use of their statements as evidence of their crimes. Read the following questions and post your responses to the discussion board. If the Due Process Clause of the Constitution protects citizens against the police coercing confessions, then are the requirements of Miranda really necessary? Is the criminal justice system benefited or hindered by requiring law enforcement to administer Miranda warnings before interviewing custodial suspects? What do you think? Chapter 9 explored various pre-trial identification procedures used by law enforcement in the criminal justice system as well as the use of certain DNA evidence. Read the following questions and post your responses to the discussion board. Many states have adopted laws which require offenders, as well as arrestees, to submit DNA samples (i.e., cheek cell swabs). Do you believe that this is appropriate? If so, in which cases should it be required? Last week we discussed how a citizen, under the 4th Amendment, may be subject to a full custodial arrest for a fine only offense. Full custodial arrests, as a matter of course, require the collection of personal identifying information such as a photograph (i.e., mug shot), fingerprints, etc. Should the collection of a DNA sample, through the minimally evasive means of taking an inner-cheek swab, be part of this booking process in all cases? In our modern age, is this another piece of information which should be collected at any arrest? If so, why? If not, why not? What limitations, if any should be imposed upon the collection and preservation of this information by the government? The exclusionary rule was a major focus of Chapter 10. In light of your reading, review the questions below and respond with your thoughts and opinions to the discussion board. Do you agree with the exclusionary rule or do you believe that it should be abolished? Why or why not? Is there a better solution to achieve the goal/s of this rule without requiring the exclusion of probative, incriminatory evidence of a crime? Is justice ultimately served by the exclusion of evidence of guilt and possibly the dismissal of criminal allegations in response to law enforcement error or misconduct? Why or why not?